patrick.net

Bitcoin says

Of course I believe it. Have you ever seen a building that was just fine after getting hit by an airplane?

No, but I've only seen two buildings hit by a jet airliner which was built in 1973, which was designed to handle a jet airliner hitting it.

A lot of damage was caused after those 2 buildings collapsed, but there were TALLER buildings than WTC CLOSER to 1&2 (which didn't collapsed but were later demolished) - yet WTC 7 collapsed.

Bitcoin says

To think that a building wont take heavy damage after getting hit by an airplane is as insane as predicting that Bitcoin will crash to 1.2k!

Oh, bitcoin will crash to 0. It's unusable as a currency. Nobody fucking believes me though, so fuck it.

WookieMan says

Skip the buildings. And I guess I'm mostly right since no one will address it. How do you get enough people into a cockpit to remove 2 adult males that have to climb in to their seat? On FOUR planes? As this happened, 100+ on some of the planes passengers just chilled and thought nothing of it on 3 planes.

There are cockpit recordings. The Islamist fucks came right in and cut the pilots throats with box cutters from behind before the Pilots had a chance to do anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Xn9m1FodY

Here is video from the movie United 93.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q8eDgvxBWI

Unless you are sitting in First Class (as all of the hijackers were) there is not much you can see or do at the moment of the attack.

On top of that, there are dozens and dozens of calls and voice messages from the passengers calling loved ones saying they witnessed the Islamists storm the cockpits and kill the pilots.

There's a picture somewhere of the mud smudge in Pennsylvania titled: "If you think an airplane crashed here, you are an idiot." No fuselages, no significant debris, no body parts. However, there were perfectly intact boxcutters and unblemished ID's of the alleged 'hijackers' taken from the scene.

Bitcoin says

PaisleyPattern says

Here’s an idea

I've got an even better idea. Just read the smart comments by smart people from socal:

"socal2 says
You would think we would have some reasonable physical evidence or whistle blowers by now instead of the same crank "experts" making the same claims over the same video for the past 20 years."

Bitcoin, just check out the hole in the side of the Pentagon, the shape of the hole, the height off the ground, the amount of the debris that was left, and look into what it would take to fly a large jet airliner into the side of the building at that height, approaching the building over in urban environment, at jet airliner speed. If you still believe that a jet airliner crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then there’s no more point in me debating anything with you.

Also, no airplane hit the Pentagon. It was determined that it was impossible for a jetliner to perform the maneuver alleged, much less the suspicious complete lack of plane debris. Witnesses saw a small rocket with 'airliner' markings. A few bits from the rocket attempted to emulate plane parts, but even journalists at the scene commented that there was no airplane debris. The few cam pictures that weren't seized show at most a small blur and an explosion, no massive airliner.

9/11 was a multi-use false flag. The Pentagon explosions just happened to almost exclusively kill a group of auditors who were uncovering massive spending anomalies. The building 7 destroyed SEC lawsuits documentations pending, including Enron documents. 9/11 was even used to empty vaults of gold that were under NYC, but no word ever about who, why, or where it went.

The Pentagon incident was a complete sham. No debris, no video of a plane, etc.

The success of these massive false flags emanating from the original 'success' of the Kennedy assassination through 9/11 are probably why we are in the mess we are in today: Deep (Shallow) State finally emboldened to operate brazenly in clear light of day, with impunity and arrogance. The 'fuck you' bird finger to the American people is so blatant and obvious. "Hey, let's give 'em a fake pandemic and stolen Presidential election next, to show that we can, indeed, put a tomato plant into any office we choose!"

This is why I don't want to debate 9/11 beyond the fact that the official story of the destruction of the 3 WTC towers is so blatantly wrong.



When you go down the rabbit hole you'll end up with nuclear bombs, death rays, and holograms.

It doesn't matter. To paraphrase richwicks, The truth is not as important as realizing they are lying.

socal2 says

January 6th selfie stick "riot"

Lol, I have to remember that phrase.

Mockery is an excellent way to deflate the thing.

socal2 says

Are we to really believe that all the Democrats that run our Media institutions are in on the cover up and unwilling to investigate?

Actually, yes.

See this:

https://patrick.net/post/1338725/2021-04-07-the-elite-are-the-most-likely-to-censor

They know that their careers are toast if they dare to question The Narrative.

Bitcoin says

Finding 3-4 willing to kill themselves for Allah is probably the easiest task on this entire attack. There are thousands of Islamic terrorists on this earth willing to do that.

After 9/11 I asked a Pakistani co-worker if Muslims were really that crazy. He said "Only 10% of them."

Then I pointed out that 10% of Pakistan's population of 200M is 20M crazy Muslims.

He started getting mad at me and I stopped.

richwicks says

which was designed to handle a jet airliner hitting it

Another good point. I remember reading that as well. Both those buildings were supposed to be able to survive this exact event.

richwicks says

Oh, bitcoin will crash to 0. It's unusable as a currency.

I think money laundering is really the big market for Bitcoin, not everyday currency.

PaisleyPattern says

Bitcoin, just check out the hole in the side of the Pentagon, the shape of the hole, the height off the ground, the amount of the debris that was left, and look into what it would take to fly a large jet airliner into the side of the building at that height, approaching the building over in urban environment, at jet airliner speed. If you still believe that a jet airliner crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then there’s no more point in me debating anything with you.

It's possible to do it, just not with the supposed skill level the narrative says they had. Training in a Cessna or similar basically. Flight has consistencies across aircraft as it's all flying at the end of the day. But a 1,200lbs plane is going to act way differently than a twin engine jet with people, baggage and large quantities of fuel. Factor in you just killed people to access the cockpit. Even our best trained military would struggle to do this. It's not Hollywood. People generally fight back, especially if it's your job to keep a plane in the air AND keep your life.

And then ID's and passports are found on the ground? LOL! They can't even find a fire and waterproof "black box" many times. Not a chance in hell they're grabbing ID's. An entire fucking jet has been missing for years (Malaysia Air or whatever). But it's totally impossible 9/11 was an inside job... Question everything.

WookieMan says

PaisleyPattern says

Bitcoin, just check out the hole in the side of the Pentagon, the shape of the hole, the height off the ground, the amount of the debris that was left, and look into what it would take to fly a large jet airliner into the side of the building at that height, approaching the building over in urban environment, at jet airliner speed. If you still believe that a jet airliner crashed into the side of the Pentagon, then there’s no more point in me debating anything with you.

It's possible to do it, just not with the supposed skill level the narrative says they had. Training in a Cessna or similar basically. Flight has consistencies across aircraft as it's all flying at the end of the day. But a 1,200lbs plane is going to act way differently than a twin engine jet with people, baggage and large quantities of fuel. Factor in you just killed people to access the cockpit. Even our be...

At the speed a jet airliner flies, it would be impossible to fly low enough, for long enough, without hitting something else first, to hit the side of a building almost at ground level.
There are lots of buildings in the way, when a jet airline lands, it has to gradually descend to that height. To hit the side of the building at ground level the airliner would have to be flying horizontally a few feet off the ground going hundreds of miles an hour, and at that speed it would cover a large distance very quickly This wouldn’t be possible because there are lots of buildings and trees and other structures in the way. Also there is no footage of an airplane flying low over that neighborhood on the day of the pentagon incident.
Building seven is ridiculous, the Pentagon is ridiculous, the two main buildings of the world trade center are ridiculous.
Who knows what really happened, but the official story is completely fake.
Unfortunately it looks like the United States government, who probably did this, are willing to kill thousands of their own citizens, and justify it somehow in terms of it being for the greater good, probably for national security.
There probably is a calculus that justifies a false flag event like 9/11 in that less people will be killed in this event then if the United States lost its control over the Mideast oil fields, or some other important strategic advantage. It’s a similar type of decisions that military leaders have to make when they send soldiers into battle knowing that a certain number will definitely die and they have to make the best decision to minimize deaths and loss of equipment.
The leadership that makes these decisions, also probably thinks that it’s in the national interest to lie to the population, because again it’s in the best interest of the country.

People like Dick Cheney I’m sure are capable of deciding that blowing up a few buildings and killing a few thousand US citizens, to prevent potential loss of millions of US lives and trillions of US dollars is a decision that they can make, lie to the American population about and live with. They might even feel proud about it, the ability to make such a tough decision.

PaisleyPattern says

People like Dick Cheney I’m sure are capable of deciding that blowing up a few buildings and killing a few thousand US citizens, to prevent potential loss of millions of US lives and trillions of US dollars is a decision that they can make, lie to the American population about and live with. They might even feel proud about it, the ability to make such a tough decision.

I don’t believe for one millisecond that the 9/11 event was planned to save American lives, or preserve American wealth. Look at where we were before 9/11 and where we are today. It is clear that 9/11 was used by the globalists to take more liberty from honest law abiding Americans and give a massive payday for military industrial complex by using it as a false flag for the Iraq war. The fact that US will not prosecute Saudi Arabia for their role in it is probably the best proof we have that it was planned by US intelligence, GWB or other deep state actors and a trial of the Saudi connection would lead right beck to the American collaborators.

America is worse off after 9/11 not better.

PaisleyPattern says

People like Dick Cheney I’m sure are capable of deciding that blowing up a few buildings and killing a few thousand US citizens, to prevent potential loss of millions of US lives and trillions of US dollars is a decision that they can make, lie to the American population about and live with. They might even feel proud about it, the ability to make such a tough decision.

Cheney - super evil genius! Yet he was too stupid to plant some WMD's in Iraq to keep the gravy train going for Halliburton and the MIC? WTF?

Most Democrats and the majority of the Media were tepid about the Iraq war at best (Judith Miller and FOX News being an exception) and the Media and Democrats totally turned on it once no WMD's were found along with the Abu Graib scandal.

Democrats and the Media routinely make shit up and lie to hurt the country and Republicans. Yet we are to believe all the garbage Media and Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC and Ilhan Omar are all part of the 9/11 conspiracy and won't question the narrative because they want to keep bankrolling defense contractors and Big Oil?

Face it, never in human history have massive jet liners full of fuel slammed into skyscrapers. There is no precedent, model or engineering study that can be referred to that irrefutably proves that the WTC wouldn't collapse like that after such catastrophic damage knocking out so many support beams at initial impact - let alone the damage the fires caused over the subsequent hours.

We have enough problems in our country right now with Democrats, Media, Corporations and Tech Oligarchs trying to strip away our freedoms. I sure wish people would stop aping Islamist, Russian and Chinese propaganda about 9/11.

socal2 says

PaisleyPattern says

People like Dick Cheney I’m sure are capable of deciding that blowing up a few buildings and killing a few thousand US citizens, to prevent potential loss of millions of US lives and trillions of US dollars is a decision that they can make, lie to the American population about and live with. They might even feel proud about it, the ability to make such a tough decision.

Cheney - super evil genius! Yet he was too stupid to plant some WMD's in Iraq to keep the gravy train going for Halliburton and the MIC? WTF?

Most Democrats and the majority of the Media were tepid about the Iraq war at best (Judith Miller and FOX News being an exception) and the Media and Democrats totally turned on it once no WMD's were found along with the Abu Graib scandal.

Democrats and the Media routinely make shit up and lie to hurt the country and Republicans. Yet we are to believe a...

OK, but what about building seven, and what about the Pentagon?

PaisleyPattern says

OK, but what about building seven, and what about the Pentagon?

Regarding the Pentagon there are eyewitnesses that saw the plane and there was debris at the site.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html



Here is a recent Popular Mechanics article that debunks many of the Pentagon conspiracy theory talking points started by the French hack back in 2002.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

socal2 says

PaisleyPattern says

OK, but what about building seven, and what about the Pentagon?

Regarding the Pentagon there are eyewitnesses that saw the plane and there was debris at the site.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html



Here is a recent Popular Mechanics article that debunks many of the Pentagon conspiracy theory talking points started by the French hack back in 2002.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

The eyewitness accounts are easy to fake. I still don’t see a video of a plane flying that low or going into the Pentagon, you would think there would be some video evidence. Also definitely not enough debris around the Pentagon. I’ve looked at the popular mechanics article, its unconvincing to me.

I don't buy the "impossible airplane angle" pentagon thing.

When I look at photos, maps / street view / satellite images, there doesn't look to be any extreme approach angle needed.

I've flown on maybe close to 50-75 airplane flights, and landed many times where the plane approached the runway by flying over a residential area, and my gut tells me this is a reasonable angle. I don't see any reason why they couldn't even scrape trees / light poles, if needed - the inertia of the plane ain't stopping.

Flight 77 approached the pentagon from the west. The video frames made it look pretty tangential to the wall, so that's the angle of approach I will assume.





These next 2 show the angle well. I just panned the street map a bit left for the 2nd pic - there's no tall anything in the way. Also, on the right, there's a metal fence, and a wall. When I look at pictures from 9/11, that fence and wall didn't exist yet, so the plane could have flown mere feet above this highway. Also, the trees on the left may not have been that tall 20yrs ago. Not that a tree would stop a plane in any case, and their path may not have even went over those trees.



In the approach, this hill is the highest thing in the way, and was 62M elevation. The pentagon ground-level is at 11m elevation, which is 3000ft away from the hill. 50m drop over 3000ft is a 3 degree angle, which seems very doable - it's not like you're aiming for a smooth landing. Note the pentagon is MUCH taller than this image shows.



It's hard to see from this screenshot, but the hill likely could have been avoided, and they could have flown between the hills / mounds, making the angle even less severe (about 45M elevation). I circled the hills and used arrows to show some paths they may have taken. Ignore my unstraight lines - that's user drawing error. I know airplane paths are pretty straight.



This vid, at 1:32 looks about a 5-10 deg angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8

Hircus says

I don't buy the "impossible airplane angle" pentagon thing.

Assuming you're not just drawing a dick there, there's a thing called "ground effect". When you are flying, you are distributing the weight of your aircraft over a wide area though pressure of air. A barn can be collapsed by a low flying plane. When you are low to the ground, this area is much smaller, and although I've ONLY done hang gliding, it's quite noticeable - it's hard to stay low because the air also pushes up on your aircraft.

I think, but I do not know, that flying a jet airline at speed into a building when you are hitting ground effect would be difficult. Not saying this is impossible, but I will again point out that the official story is that a commercial jet entered the most highly guarded airspace in the nation to hit the headquarters of national defense (that's the Pentagon) 30 minutes after that plane was known to be hijacked and 30 minutes after it was known there was a terrorist attack using commercial airliners is supicious.

It's easy to write off that our government is staffed with morons, but when it comes to the government, assume malice before you assume stupidity. I don't think people in our government are dumber than I am. They are, however, much more obedient to blind orders than I am. I will readily disagree with "an authority figure" if I think that their stated goal and orders contradicts with achieving the stated desired results.

If I ever joined the military, I would have been thrown out with a dishonorable discharge, because the stated goals are not the actual goals. That's not true with lifetime government slaves. They only follow orders and thinking for yourself, is looked down upon.

It's not even about the angle. You have to account for skill. It's equivalent to someone getting a hole in one in golf the 5th time they play. It can happen, but it's not probable. The hours these guys had was negligible. They were on their 5th round of golf.

Watch some videos of jets landing. There are plenty as it's a hobby for some. Even 10k+ hour pilots botch landings or float them before touch down and have to do a go around. You're also trained visually for a runway, not hitting buildings. To hit something visually below you from a cockpit likely with no flaps (slower flight) is insanely tough. And I'm sure it could be replicated in a flight sim. Now have people screaming, cut up pilots bleeding out and you have 0 hours in that class of aircraft.

BUT, it could have happened. I used to put down 9/11 hoaxers, but I'm on the fence now. I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole on the buildings. I like flight so I'm more interested in that aspect. There's a lot of holes in all of it. But the flying part, especially with the Pentagon, is a hard one to wrap my brain around.

You're talking massive magnitudes of difference in size, thrust, speed, weight, etc. to what those dip shits trained in. Possible, yes. Probable, no. So since I've gotten into aviation a bit (no expert by any stretch) the Pentagon is difficult to believe. The towers getting hit is more believable as you can easily see them all the way to impact. Plus there's video of that. Hard to not believe that.

Them falling is something I don't get into. I question the narrative when these guys got into the cockpit with zero in type of aircraft and flew 3 of 4 missions successfully, possibly under duress. This cannot be denied. So the buildings don't really matter. The narrative is extremely difficult to believe before they crashed.

Pics or it didn't happen

Explanation of the 911 Pentagon Evidence

original link
/

richwicks says

Bitcoin says

To think that a building wont take heavy damage after getting hit by an airplane is as insane as predicting that Bitcoin will crash to 1.2k!

Oh, bitcoin will crash to 0. It's unusable as a currency. Nobody fucking believes me though, so fuck it.

I disagree. Stupid HODLERS think they own digital gold and will never sell. They forget that bitcoin is valued in fiat. Bitcoin very well may go to millions of worthless dollars for one useless bitcoin.

Not surprised that people who BELIEVE in bitcoin don't believe the 3 WTC towers were blown up. These people are fact challenged. They refuse to look at any evidence that challenges their worldview.

Donald says

porkchopexpress says

The Pentagon incident was a complete sham. No debris, no video of a plane, etc.

A simple Google search of Flight 77 video would say otherwise

Link? I haven't found any conclusive video that shows a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon. I'd love to see it.

richwicks says

Assuming you're not just drawing a dick there, there's a thing called "ground effect". When you are flying, you are distributing the weight of your aircraft over a wide area though pressure of air. A barn can be collapsed by a low flying plane. When you are low to the ground, this area is much smaller, and although I've ONLY done hang gliding, it's quite noticeable - it's hard to stay low because the air also pushes up on your aircraft.

I don't know what speeds and conditions that effect becomes significant. I feel like this angle looks very similar to landing on a runway. Pilots do this all the time. This should be easier in many ways, because there's no expectation of a smooth landing on the wheels.

If I went to the local airport, snapped my fingers to instantly place a 5 story, 65 foot pentagon-like concrete wall near the start of the landing strip, are you saying planes would suddenly have trouble hitting it?

WookieMan says

It's not even about the angle. You have to account for skill. It's equivalent to someone getting a hole in one in golf the 5th time they play. It can happen, but it's not probable. The hours these guys had was negligible. They were on their 5th round of golf.

Watch some videos of jets landing. There are plenty as it's a hobby for some. Even 10k+ hour pilots botch landings or float them before touch down and have to do a go around.

I'd argue we don't know their skill. We just know some portion of their training. It would have been trivial for them to hop on a private boat to goto another country to do additional training w/ jihadis, w/o our govt knowing they went to the middle east and putting them on a terror list. They also could have been coached in the usa by more experienced pilots down w/ the jihad, and while flight simulators weren't as sophisticated back then, they were still useful for training. I bet they used sims for many hundreds of hours in preparation.

I still maintain landing on a runway is an all day every day thing for pilots. I don't know what the landing abort rate is, but I bet it's extremely low unless you face a crosswind or something like that. I have never aborted a landing, and I may have flown 75 times at this point. Plus, I think this maneuver is probably much easier when you dont care if you give the plane a few bumps and scratches...

videos of st maarten airport show airplanes landing w/ more than enough precision to EASILY hit the pentagon.

Hircus says

I'd argue we don't know their skill. We just know some portion of their training

Exactly. That you can find 30-50 jihadists trained to fly an airplane and willing to kill themselves in order to gain >70 virgins each in Allah's kingdom is the most believable point in the entire event. Obviously, an attack like this takes years of planning, training and preparation.

Onvacation says

richwicks says

Bitcoin says

To think that a building wont take heavy damage after getting hit by an airplane is as insane as predicting that Bitcoin will crash to 1.2k!

Oh, bitcoin will crash to 0. It's unusable as a currency. Nobody fucking believes me though, so fuck it.

I disagree. Stupid HODLERS think they own digital gold and will never sell. They forget that bitcoin is valued in fiat. Bitcoin very well may go to millions of worthless dollars for one useless bitcoin.

Onvacation got it! Dont know why this was turned into a Bitcoin discussion but yes, its a pipe dream to think it will crash to 0. More likely to see 500k BTC in the next years.

So, we're in the midst of a government imposed campaign of deception with experimental biological agents causing mass deaths, tyranny, social upheaval, and economic chaos on purpose over a fake pandemic, right after a rigged national election for President putting an unpopular senile pedophile on the throne, and yet people still want to believe it wasn't possible that in 2001 the government sacrificed its own citizens in an enormous programmed false flag in order to wage an unjustified war on the Middle East and diminish our citizens' rights?

Hope springs eternal in the wishful thinking breast. Let's keep living on naive planet while they herd us into the gulags with our jabs.

Ceffer says

an enormous programmed false flag in order to wage an unjustified war on the Middle East

We were attacked by Islamic terrorists and hit them back hard. If you mess with the strongest country in the world you get vaporized. There are millions of extremists who want to see the death of the USA. Nowadays, we target the fuckers with drone strikes. 9/11 wasnt a false flag. It was an attack by muslims. Europe is overrun by muslims. I dont want to see this happen to the US. Have strong borders, limit immigration from the middle east and take out extreme muslim leaders/terrorists with beautiful high tech drone strikes (daily). Go USA!

Ceffer says

and yet people still want to believe it wasn't possible that in 2001 the government sacrificed its own citizens in an enormous programmed false flag in order to wage an unjustified war on the Middle East and diminish our citizens' rights?

I'm not sure I've seen someone make that argument in this thread.

But I'm sure glad I'm not the only one who still sees value in discussing and debating specific facts and evidence.


Ceffer says

Hope springs eternal in the wishful thinking breast.

I sure hope the irony of the double sided nature of that statement isn't lost upon you.

Bitcoin says

We were attacked by Islamic terrorists and hit them back hard.

I disagree.

We were attacked by The Islamic Dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and hit the mostly secular country of Iraq hard.

A million Iraqis died for something the Saudis did.

The Saudis were never punished at all.

We punished the Saudis by immediately putting democracy in place in Iraq. Given the population breakdown of Iraq, that effectively gave Iraq to the Saudi's prime enemy...Iran.

George W. Love him or hate him?

Saudi Arabia was only possibly implicated by allowing themselves to be the patsies, and expecting that the successful false flag would allow them to spread Wahhabi type Muslim beliefs in the Middle East. Remember, Muslims slaughter each other's factions with the same glee that they slaughter everybody else. Saudi Arabia is the enemy of Iran, another Muslim state of different Muslim faction.

You wonder why they have never been held to count over 9/11? It's because they didndu it, and the American government knows it.

Purportedly, some of the depicted 'dead terrorists' who were still in the Middle East woke up to their shock to find their pictures in the paper as the perps.

The hijackers were Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations. Financed by the al Qaeda terrorist organization of Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden.
The cancer (islamic terrorism) spreads across borders. I wasnt a fan of the Iraq war either. The middle east is a cluster fuck but we defeated al Qaeda and most recently ISIS. Whatever the next group calls itself, we will erase them as well. With special forces on the ground and drone strikes.

Hircus says

We just know some portion of their training.

We don't know. One can't just assume the narrative is true. Could they have trained elsewhere, that's not evident. Even with the standard 40hr minimum and potential flight sim time somewhere else, that's not real life hitting a 70' facade below your field of view (not a runway) at 200mph in a massively different class of aircraft. Likely under duress.

I'm not saying it could not happen. But it's okay to question. The narrative before they got off the ground and then in the air doesn't make sense. We'll never know because everyone on all the planes are dead now. So that's why the conversation goes to the buildings.

Something being possible, versus realistic is completely different. The scenario, with our military and the time between knowing (edit) shit was hitting the fan is simply not realistic. To get even one plane into a building is like winning the Powerball. They got 3 of 4.

People need to focus on the why and not the how it happened. The narrative is destroyed before a plane hits any building. The end result of dicking around in the ME kind of proves that.

The same Bush family that financed Hitler in WWII, was implicated in Kennedy's assassination, attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, brought you 9/11 false flag after announcing the few years before that we 'needed' a 'New Pearl Harbor'. Yeah, they are too moral and patriotic to do anything like that.